[blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] By the pricking of my thumbs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Ed wrote:
>
>>
>> Who said it wasn't an irregularity?
>
> Ummm. Richard - in the post to which I originally responded saying I
> believed it WAS an irregularity.
>
>> >> call to 1S. To "infer" that the player has hearts is ludicrous,
>> >
>> > Agreed.  But what of any inferences from the LHO's *reaction* to
>> > the 1H, or a bid made by LHO prior to correction?
>>
>> Whose LHO?
>
> The LHO of the player making the wrong call - obviously.
>
>> > What of the requirement to make bids in the proper form (1H I mean
>> > 1S is NOT proper form)?
>>
>> "1H I mean 1S" is not what I posited the player said. He said "1H",
>> which IS proper form. Then he said "Oops, I didn't mean to make that
>> call."
>
> Stop being a tosser.  "1H, oops I didn't mean to.." is also not the
> proper form.  There was no "pause for thought" between the "1H" and the
> "oops .." so why try and separate the two statements?
>
>> > In the vast majority of L25a cases there is no UI, no penalty, and
>> > no problem - but they are still irregularities of procedure.
>>
>> Okay, so what's your point?
>
> My point is that an inadvertent call is an irregularity.  Opps may
> legitimately call the TD.  Information gained therefrom is UI to OS,
> etc, etc.
>
> Tim

It is my understanding that the law makes no provision for penalizing, nor 
admonishment that a player must change, his inadvertent call.  I am inclined 
to believe  that an inadvertent call may, or may not be an irregularity. 
The determining factor being its legality, which is to say that its status 
of inadvertent matters not .

To further clarify, it is a subsequent  change of call, correction of call, 
or extraneous communication as to the status of the call [eg. I want to 
correct it to....] that is an irregularity.

As such, an inadvertent call is classed as a call not grounded within a 
partnership system of communication, and law forty grants that such a call 
may be made [without being an irregularity].

And having said all that, I am at odds as to how an opponent would have 
knowlege at the time that a call is made that it was inadvertent so as to 
justify summoning the director to deal with an irregularity <sic>.

regards
roger pewick